423 Memoirs of Leonardo Aretino. 424 Soon after the death of Colucio, of his master, therefore, Leonardo, Leonardo meditated the design of tes- though not without reluctance, quitted tifying his gratitude to his deceased Rome, on a mission into Lombardy benefactor, by celebrating his virtues and the Marca d'Ancona.§ In this in a funeral oration. But in the pro- mission he was employed till the latter gress of this work he was embarrassed, end of June, when he arrived at Viby the consciousness that the life of terbo on his return to Rome. At the subject of his panegyric was desti- Viterbo he was detained many days tute of those splendid events, the re- by his dread of the Neapolitan troops, cording of which can alone render such whose hostile incursions rendered tracompositions permanently interesting. velling extremely dangerous.|| He As no oration of this description has had, however, at length the good for yet been found in the libraries of Italy, tune to surmount all difficulties; and it is probable that the abovementioned in the month of July, he arrived in circumstance induced him to relin- safety in the pontifical capital. quish his undertaking. In consequence of this determination, though we must applaud the discretion of Leonardo in not attempting to grace the character of his friend, by ascribing to it a factitious importance, we have to lament the suppression of anecdotes relative to the life of a scholar, who by his literary merits raised himself to the chancellorship of the Tuscan republic.* In the letter in which Leonardo announced to Niccolo Niccoli his unfortunate altercation with Colucio, he apprised his correspondent that the pontifical court was about to be transferred from Viterbo to Rome. This change of residence, which he ascribed to the intrigues of a few interested and ambitious individuals, was by no means pleasing to his feelings. He dreaded the hostile and seditious spirit of the Roman citizens. Nor could he be persuaded that the pontiff could safely reside in his capital, whilst the castle of St. Angelo was garrisoned by the enemy. These considerations did not, however, prevent Innocent from proceeding to Rome; in which city he arrived on the 13th of March, 1406.1 In the course of a very short period of time, events but too well justified the fears which Leonardo entertained of the rebellious disposition of the Romans. In the beginning of April, the pontiff was reduced to the necessity of applying to his allies for assistance; and it is a proof of the high estimation in which he now held Leonardo, that on this occasion he determined to delegate to him the important office of confidential envoy. At the command Soon after the return of Leonardo to the papal court, the good effects of his negociations were experienced, in pacific overtures, which were made to his Holiness on the part of the king of Naples. By the mediation of Paulo, the chief of the illustrious family of the Orsini, these overtures were speedily ripened into a treaty of peace; according to the tenor of which Ladislaus, on the 9th of August, surrendered to the pontiff the castle of St. Angelo. This event seemed to insure the future tranquillity of Innocent, who, by the influence of his good character, no less than by the terror of his power, had subdued the seditious spirit of his subjects. But this gleam of hope was the serenity of the setting sun. On the 6th day of November, the church was deprived of a pontiff, who is characterised, by a most respectable Italian historian, as worthy of general commendation, on account of the mildness of his temper, his abhorrence of simony, and the benevolence of his disposition. The circumstances which attended his death are thus narrated by Leonardo in a letter to Francesco, prince of Cortona. "So various are the opinions and suspicions which have been circulated in the very city-nay, in the very house in which the pontiff died, that I am by no means surprised that you have received contradictory accounts of the particulars of that event. The pontifical court swarms with men of malignant minds; some of whom are prone to give credit to every sinister report, while others are so abandoned as to propagate calumnious stories, which they do not themselves believe. Leonardi Aret. Epist. lib. i. ep. 11. Muratori Annali, tom. ix. p. 33. 425 Memoirs of Leonardo Aretino.-The Stayed Man. 426 As for myself, as far as I was enabled Christendom was at this time disto judge by my personal observation, tracted, by the celebrated schism of I am firmly persuaded that the pontiff the west. For the space of eightdied a natural death. For what occa-and-twenty years, the true believers sion is there to impute to extraordi- had been scandalized by the coexistnary causes the decease of a man of ence of two pontiffs; each claiming upwards of seventy years of age, the power of the keys, and each anawhose constitution was broken by ill thematizing his rival and his adhehealth? For this was not the first rents. The competitor of the deceased time of his being attacked by infirmity. pontiff was Pietro da Luna, who, on To my own certain knowledge, besides his election, which took place at Avighis being occasionally subject to the non in the year 1393, had assumed the gout and to pains in his side, he was name of Benedict XIII. twice seized by apoplectic fits,—in a slight degree at Rome, and afterwards, with more alarming symptoms, at Viterbo, when he was sitting in the hall of audience. On the latter occasion, had not I and some others of his attendants, who happened to be present, run to his assistance, he would have fallen from his chair in the presence of the whole assembly. We carried him into his chamber, where he lay almost lifeless and unable to speak. By the long and assiduous attendance of his physicians, he at length escaped, or rather, for a little while deferred his death. In the month of March, 1407, he returned to Rome; and during the warmth of the summer he seemed to be tolerably well, but on the approach of winter he was again attacked by the complaint which put a period to his life. There was this difference between the sickness with which he was seized at Viterbo, and that which terminated in his death; that in the former, his speech was so much affected that he could scarcely make himself understood, whereas in the latter he had no impediment in the use of his tongue. In the former case, too, he was cross and peevish; in the latter, gentle and meek. Four days before his death, I introduced into his chamber certain messengers, who had been sent by the Florentine people to announce to him the capture of Pisa. With these he conversed with so much ease, that he did not appear to be at all troubled with sickness; and with so much patience and politeness, that he stretched his naked foot from under the bed-clothes, in order that they might have the honour of kissing it. He died at Rome, in the Vatican church, where his remains are deposited."* After the funeral of Innocent, the Cardinals, who were assembled in conclave at Rome, deliberated for some time whether they should decline proceeding to an election, or choose a new pontiff in the place of the deceased. Their hesitation was occasioned by the following circumstance. The Princes of France had induced Benedict most solemnly to promise that he would abdicate the papal chair, in case that the Italian cardinals should forbear from proceeding to a new election, or that the pontiff whom they might choose should voluntarily vacate the pontifical throne, in order that by an union of the two colleges a pontiff might be nominated, whose appointment would meet with the approbation of all Christendom. "This," as Leonardo Aretino observes,t was certainly a pious provision of the Gallic princes-a provision which deserved the commendation of all the faithful. For no end could be expected to be put to the schism, whilst each party stood upon the footing of right; especially as in this cause no judge was competent to decide, except God himself.” * Leonardi Aret. Epist. lib. ii. ep, 2. No. 27.-VOL. III. 66 (To be continued.) CHARACTER OF THE STAYED MAN. He is a man-one that has taken order with himself, and sets a rule to those lawlessnesses within him: whose life is distinct and in method, and his actions as it were cast up before ;not loosed into the world's vanities, but gathered up and contracted in his station. Not scattered into many pieces of businesses; but that one course he takes, goes through with. A man firm, and standing in his purposes; not heaved off with each wind + Leonardi Aret. Epist. lib. ii. ep. 3. 2 E 427 To make Ginger Beer.-Foundation of the Popedom. 428 TO MAKE GINGER BEER. MR. EDITOR. and passion. That squares his ex-abler to any thing than to make pense to his coffers, and makes the verses. total first, and then the items. One From a curious little work entitled, that thinks what he does, and does "Characters," by EDWARD BLUNT, what he says; and foresees what he published in the year 1669. may do, before he purposes. One whose if I can, is more than another's assurance, and his doubtful tale before some men's protestations; that is confident of nothing in futurity, yet his conjectures oft true prophecies; that makes a pause betwixt his can and believe, and is not too hasty to say after others. One whose tongue is strung up like a clock till the time, and then strikes, and says much when he talks little; that can see the truth betwixt two wranglers, and who sees them agree even in that they fall out upon; that speaks no rebellion in a bravery, or talks big from the spirit of sack. A man cool and temperate in his passions, not easily betrayed by his choler; that vies not oath with oath, nor heat with heat, but replies calmly to an angry man, and is too hard for him too; that can come fairly off from captain's companies, and neither drink nor quarrel. One whom no ill hunting sends home discontented, and makes him swear at his dogs and family. One not hasty to pursue the new fashion, nor yet affectedly true to his old round breeches; but gravely handsome, and to his place, which suits him better than his tailor; active in the world without disquiet, and careful without misery, -yet neither ingulft in his pleasures, nor a seeker of businesses; but hath his hour for both. A man that seldom laughs violently, but his mirth is a cheerful look; of a composed and unsettled countenance; not set, not much alterable with sadness or joy: he affects nothing so wholly, that he must be a miserable man when he loses it; but forethinks what will come hereafter, and spares fortune his thanks and curses. One that loves his credit, not this word reputation; yet can save both without a duel: whose entertainments to greater men are respectful, not complimentary; and to his friends plain, not rude. A good husband, father, master; that is without doting, pampering familiarity. A man well poised in all humours; in whom nature shew'd most geometry; and he hath not spoil'd the work. A man of more wisdom than wittiness, and brain than fancy; and SIR, Mr. Matterson, chemist, Leeds, having observed in your valuable publication, col. 344, a Receipt for Ginger Beer, handed to you by Mr. Wright; and knowing the same to be incorrect, has directed me to send you the fol lowing, I am, pro Edward Matterson, Your obt. and humble Servant, GEORGE SMITH. Receipt. Indian raw Sugar 2 oz. Carbonate of Soda 2 drams, Ginger in powder 1 ditto, mixed. This makes the first six powders, to be wrapt in blue papers. Tartaric Acid 2 drams, Essence of Lemons 12 drops, mixed together; these will constitute the other six powders, wrapt in white paper. Directions. They may be taken in the manner as directed by E. Wright in your Imperial Magazine. THE FABULOUS FOUNDATION OF THE POPEDOM: A TREATISE intended to shew that it cannot be proved that Peter was ever at Rome. Printed at Oxford, 1619. (The author, as appears from the Dedication, was Richard Bernard.) Although it is properly proclaimed to be the intention of the Editor not to admit into the Imperial Magazine Controversies on whole Systems of Divinity, yet an abstract of the contents of this old tract may be both amusing and instructive to your readers; many of whom, though averse from Popery, may have suffered the opinion of Peter's having resided at Rome, if not of his having been the first bishop of that church, to become settled in their minds, simply from its having been generally credited. The fabric of Popery rests on this foundation, that Peter was bishop of 429 Fabulous Foundation of the Popedom. 430 Rome; and let Protestants bring what | Rome was not sufficient to make the arguments they may, to convict Papists apostle bishop of that city, as we of errors in doctrine, and of vicious understand the word bishop, must be conduct, yet all will be unavailing, granted; for then he had been bishop so long as they are permitted to take of Jerusalem, Cæsarea, Samaria, Lydshelter under the authority of the apos- da, Joppa, Antioch, and Babylon; tle Peter, or of his supposed successor which Papists will not allow of. But, the Pope of Rome. It is, therefore, certainly, residence in a place was the object of the following Essay to necessary, to constitute the apostle prove, that so far from having been bishop of that place; and the reason bishop of Rome, the apostle Peter given by the Popish champion, that was never in that city; and this will Clement V., John XXII., Benedict be done by appeals to the sacred XII., Clement VI., and Innocent VII. Scriptures, to authentic history, and were made bishops in France, and there abode, is flatly contrary to Scripture, and the practice of the primitive church. And if Peter must be bishop, why not denominate his see from the place of his residence? But before Bellarmine, all Popish writers made it necessary that he should reside at Rome; and for that purpose, they asserted that the see was transferred from Antioch; and they even affect to show the chair wherein he used to sit. to common sense. It must be admitted to have been an ancient opinion, that Peter had been at Rome, and that he sealed the truth with his blood in that city:-but it must also be allowed, that antiquity of itself is not a sufficient warrant for us to place implicit faith in this opinion; for there is an antiquity of error as well as of truth; nor has this story been first questioned in our day, as the cardinal Baronius would persuade us to believe: Whitakers and Morneus are evidences to the contrary; and Marsilius Patavinus discussed the question in the days of the emperor Lodowick, about 200 (400) years ago, Even Bellarmine acknowledges that Wickliffe, and Williams his master, called this matter in question; and the archbishop of Spalatra men tions Firmilianus in the days of Cyprian, who doubted whether the bishop of Rome sat in Peter's chair, and was his successor. Other writers on the same subject are, Valenus, Bale, L. Osiander, Reneccius, Functius, Magdeburgensis, Illiricus, Sibrandus Lubbertus, Polanus, Willet, Junius, Helvicus, Broughton, Rickerman, and others; who all had doubts whether the commonly received opinion of Peter's residence at, or even visit to, Rome, were true. And, indeed, so strong are the arguments which these writers have advanced, that Bellarmine is obliged to have recourse to a miserable shift; and to say, that it is neither requisite nor sufficient to make Peter bishop of Rome, to prove that he had been there.-(De rem Pontif. lib. ii. c. 1.) But though this is his assertion, he was well convinced of the importance of proving the affirmative of the proposition; and accordingly he labours mightily to make a good appearance of the matter. That his presence at It will be admitted, that the Canonical Scripture is entirely silent respecting any visit, or intended visit, of Peter to Rome; but considerable importance is attached by Papists to these words of our Saviour to this apostle, "Feed my sheep," and "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Matt. xvi. 19. They seek in these words his supremacy; but by what quintessence of wit do they find Rome there? The most proper comment on the above quoted words, is contained in the 20th chapter of John, ver. 21 to 23; "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." There, no more is given to St. Peter than to any other apostle, a plenary power being given to each; and the only reason which can be given why Peter is particularly mentioned is, that in the first instance, Matt. xvi. 19. he was first to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Messiah; and in the second place, having forfeited his apostleship by the denial of his Master, that dignity is restored to him in the words "Feed my sheep." That the power of the keys was not exclusively in Peter, is plain from the practice of St. Paul; but if it must be, that the 431 Fabulous Foundation of the Popedom. words of Christ put Peter into the possession of his bishopric at Rome, what reason can be given why he went, (as Bellarmine earnestly contends against Onuphrius that he did,) in the first place to Antioch, there to be bishop? If he was bishop of Antioch for seven years before he went to Rome, why is it that Antioch docs not possess the supremacy? How are we to know that the see was transferred from Antioch to Rome, if there is no evidence of his having resided in the latter city? And when these questions are answered, I would demand, did Christ speak these words to Peter as an apostle, or as a bishop? If they were addressed to him as to a bishop, then Christ spake to him, not as to a prince of the apostles, but as to one inferior to them all: for the apostles could and did make bishops, but no man could make an apostle but Jesus Christ himself. It has been urged, that Peter would necessarily choose the principal city of the world for his principal seat; but this is merely begging the question for if there be no evidence that he did choose this city for his principal seat, what men may imagine will have little weight in an argument. But not only is there no evidence of his having ever been at Rome; but there is the most positive proof that can be expected on such a point, that he never was there: we will examine these reasons in order. 432 Jerusalem was held in the 10th year from the conversion of St. Paul; to this adding seven years for his abode at Antioch, there remain but nine years, instead of 25, for his residence at Rome; and as for what Eusebius says, that he founded a church at Antioch, it is flatly against the authority of Scripture, Acts xi. 19, 26. A second reason for believing that Peter never was at Rome is, that his journeying thither, spoken of by Metaphrastes, the revelation of the translation of his seat from Antioch to Rome, mentioned in Gratian's decrees, and his death as described by Linus, who is said to have been his successor, are rejected as untruths by three learned cardinals, Baronius, Causanius, and Bellarmine. Again, the holy Scriptures are entirely silent on the subject; though the fact is said to be of so great importance by the Papists, as to be the foundation of their faith; all who do not believe it being accounted heretics. And surely if the Papists are right, it was much more important that Peter's journey to Rome should be recorded, than that of Paul; and yet we find that the lat ter went thither by revelation, though not one word is said of the journey of the former. A fourth reason is, the covenant made between Peter and Paul; that the former should go to the Jews, and the latter to the Gentiles: which covenant was made on the effectual work The Papists say, that Peter went of God, seen plainly in the ministry of first to Rome in the second year of Peter towards the Jews, and Paul the emperor Claudius; but in the towards the Gentiles: to the one was Scriptures we find him before, at that committed the gospel of the circumtime and after, in Jerusalem, Judea, cision, and to the other the gospel of and the borders of that country; be- the uncircumcision, with the consent yond which he never went until after of the other apostles. Peter, therethe Council at Jerusalem, seven years fore, confined his labours principally after the second of Claudius. They to the Jews, to whom he wrote his also believe that he was bishop of Epistles; and at the time of the CounRome for the space of 25 years, after cil at Jerusalem, seven years after the having been bishop of Antioch seven time when it is feigned that he had years; and that he suffered martyr- taken up his residence at Rome, the dom at the same time with the apos-only instance which he could allege of tle Paul. But Epiphanius says that Paul suffered death in the 12th year of Nero; and Baronius fixes that event in the 13th of that emperor, which was about 33 or 34 years after his conversion. Bellarmine himself allows that Peter abode in Judea five years, in Antioch seven, and at Rome 25, which added together make many ore than Peter lived; the Council at his ministry among the Gentiles was, that which took place at Cæsarea, when Cornelius was converted. Unless, therefore, we are to regard St. Peter as a covenant-breaker, we cannot suppose him to be bishop of Rome. It may be objected, that Pant preached to the Jews, and therefore there could be no harm in Peter's |